The additional slides give some insight as to who the NSA believes is a worthy target.

The efforts – detailed in documents provided previously by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden – included a broad campaign of international pressure aimed not only at WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but at what the U.S. government calls “the human network that supports WikiLeaks.” The documents also contain internal discussions about targeting the file-sharing site Pirate Bay and hacktivist collectives such as Anonymous...

Illustrating how far afield the NSA deviates from its self-proclaimed focus on terrorism and national security, the documents reveal that the agency considered using its sweeping surveillance system against Pirate Bay, which has been accused of facilitating copyright violations. The agency also approved surveillance of the foreign “branches” of hacktivist groups, mentioning Anonymous by name.

While some concern is expressed by NSA guidance that US citizens' data will be caught in this program's nets, the general response seems to be, "report it," but otherwise "it's nothing to worry about." What's worse, however, is how simple it is for the NSA to flip the switch on total surveillance (including US persons) while still remaining in the clear, legally-speaking.

A third document, from July 2011, contains a summary of an internal discussion in which officials from two NSA offices – including the agency’s general counsel and an arm of its Threat Operations Center – considered designating WikiLeaks as “a ‘malicious foreign actor’ for the purpose of targeting.” Such a designation would have allowed the group to be targeted with extensive electronic surveillance – without the need to exclude U.S. persons from the surveillance searches.

This designation itself is relatively meaningless, needing only a 51% "confidence" (whatever that means) to be able to search "without defeats" (minimization). This low bar puts the designation on par with other tools deployed frequently by intelligence and investigative agencies, like NSLs (national security letters) and administrative subpoenas.

So, simply visiting any of the sites listed could result in your data being swept up "inadvertently." This will probably be noted on the OGC's report, but otherwise it just seems to be considered unavoidable collateral damage. Anything on those reports isn't considered to be abuse because of the lack of intent. The document seems very clear that intentionally targeting US persons or US-to-US communications is forbidden (and indeed the latter will return "no results"), but the inadvertent collection is still a concern, especially when the only obstacle can easily be removed by calling TPB, Wikileaks and others "malicious foreign actors."

How targeting these sites (and their users) fights terrorism is completely unclear. The TPB may post a link to "stolen documents" but it's not the host (unless the NSA has also been tasked with playing copyright cop). As for Wikileaks, the "stolen documents" discussed in the internal wiki have been public for years without creating anything more serious than diplomatic embarrassment.

This does, however, seem to fall in line with the law enforcement and intelligence agencies' increasing tendency to portray "dissent" as "terrorism" when the only similarity between the two is an antipathy towards those in power.

"...increasing tendency to portray "dissent" as "terrorism" when the only similarity between the two is an antipathy towards those in power."

It's not so much that we feel antipathic towards those in power just because they're in power. Generally, we feel antipathic towards those who commit immoral acts. It just so happens that many in government like the NSA commit acts of immorality and hypocrisy and also happen to be in power, making them invincible from repercussions.

it wouldn't surprise me if the NSA has also been tasked with playing copyright cop' the reason being that a bit more was posted by another site than has been here, where it is stated that the NSA gave authorisation to the monitoring of TPB and Wikileaks. you dont have to be a brain surgeon to realise who would want this to be enacted, nor who organised it to happen with who. the old pals act coming into play yet again! but we must remember, however, that file sharers are not just the scum of the earth, spending more money on music, movies, games and software than any other group, regardless of age and income, they are also the most ardent terrorists too!

Re:

I wouldn't be surprised it that happens in the future though. If all of the leaks from the NSA scandals end up with NSA budgets being severely cut, they will be looking at new ways of funding their operations. Meanwhile, standing by with boatloads of cash, will be the Content Cartels just salivating at the potential power of the NSA spy machine at their disposal to chase down people who share content with others. When DRM phones home, home will be the NSA. It will be a perfect storm of evil unconstitutionality.

copyright cartel

We all know that Hollywood has a powerful lobby and many friends in high places, and with the knowledge that the NSA has the ability to unmask the identity of any anonymous-proxy-using leaker, why would they not try to get the NSA to do their dirty work for them? After all, they already get both national and local law enforcement to routinely investigate, raid, and prosecute low-grade copyright infringement of the sort that are civil, not criminal issues. Using the NSA and its spying apparatus to protect its commercial interests would seem a natural extension of Hollywood's success in turning various (taxpayer-funded) government agencies into its own private police force.

Re: copyright cartel

Exactly. And when the NSA has all the money it wants for its operations, it doesn't need Hollywood. But should that money get severely cut in the backlash, expect the NSA to start looking to make alternative deals to get the money they need. Cutting deals with Hollywood to help each other is exactly sort of thing I would expect them to do.

It goes a bit deeper than mentioned here at Techdirt. Not only was Wikileaks targeted by the NSA and the GCHQ, but calls went out from Obama to attempt to get various countries to stop Assange from national border hopping and to attempt to find some way for one of those countries to charge Assange with some sort of crime.

not new

It's not a "new leaked document", rather it's an old leak document (from Snowden) held until the timing is right to get people like you to write about it.

Greenwald and all are playing you guys like a fiddle, don't you realize? It's not like Snowden snuck in and got a bunch of new documents, is it? They have had these for 6 months or more. If it's that important, why sit on it and wait until now?

Collateral Damage

"This will probably be noted on the OGC's report, but otherwise it just seems to be considered unavoidable collateral damage. Anything on those reports isn't considered to be abuse because of the lack of intent."

Kind of like: "We were 51% sure there might have been a terrorist somewhere in that shopping mall. All the other shoppers killed in there by the missile strike were just collateral damage. We weren't specifically targeting them, so it's OK."

Re: Collateral Damage

Or how about, "We were 51% sure there might have been a terrorist somewhere in that protest group. All the other protestors killed by the drone were just collateral damage. We weren't specifically targeting them, so it's OK."

So they aren't stopping terrorists.They have been caught on several occasions using this power to do things that benefit corporations.And yet somehow they still claim this is the right way to do things.

Perhaps we need to think about the right way to make the government afraid of its people and not its corporate backers again.

Also, issue of monitoring of WL users is BS. What is the point knowing in real time that Joe Shmo from Brooklyn viewed WL? Even so, that would require wasting manhours on total BS workload. They either lied to the remaining Five Eyes to impress, or have tons of money to spend on analysts doing BS. That would also require suicidal moron at the helm.

On the list...

hmmmm dissidents are terrorists .....

and we know the Fed never listens to the demands of terrorists...

Methinks we have just been told, in a round-about way, that absolutely nothing that the US public says or does will have any effect on the way the Fed does what it does... ever, unless its to demand "more of the same".

I would say that this is - in a round-about way - an admission that the US Fed is now simply a department of USA Inc., under the Joint Chiefs of Commerce.

It has pretty much admitted that it will, from here on in, only listen to and consider as valid, commentary and actions by citizens who support its actions 100%.

Anyone who considers the actions of the Fed to be anything but perfect is considered to be an adversary or terrorist and is "on the list".